Proposals:
24/01885/FUL | Installation of 1no. freestanding smart communications hub with integrated digital screens. | Pavement Outside 23-38 Hythe Bridge Street Oxford Oxfordshire OX1 2EP
24/01886/ADV | Display of 2no. internally illuminated digital LED displays. | Pavement Outside 23-38 Hythe Bridge Street Oxford Oxfordshire OX1 2EP
24/01887/FUL | Installation of 1no. freestanding smart communications hub with integrated digital screens. | Land At Oxford Railway Station Park End Street Oxford Oxfordshire
24/01888/ADV | Display of 2no. internally illuminated digital LED displays. | Land At Oxford Railway Station Park End Street Oxford Oxfordshire
Our response:
Oxford Preservation Trust is dedicated to the preservation of Oxford’s public realm and encourage works that result in the enhancement of Oxford’s unique built heritage. With this in mind, OPT strongly object to the freestanding smart communications hubs, which are proposed in highly sensitive locations within the city centre.
The proposed location of the communication hub sits on a very busy thoroughfare which links the west end of the city to the city centre. Those that come to and from Oxford via rail use this route as one of the key routes to the city centre. There is also a planning application currently under consideration which seeks to redevelop the key corner plot on Hythe Bridge Street – with one the key aims to improve the pubic realm along this part of the street. The introduction of a large digital communication hub will add unnecessary clutter which would significantly harm any potential future work to open up this part of the pavement and improve the public realm.
Whilst it could be argued that the proposed defibrillators are useful features within public areas, and innovative services such as rapid connections to emergency services are potentially beneficial, the design approach of the communication hubs is clear in that the provision of these services is secondary to the provision of large-scale digital advertising. The “main advertisement screens” proposed as being 1.66m by 0.93m would be the clear primary function of the devices.
OPT highlight the fact that a number of similar planning applications were submitted in 2022 (22/02429/FUL, 22/02435/FUL, 22/02433/FUL) these proposed ‘multifunction hubs’ in similar locations across the city centre. These applications were all refused, with Officers considering the proposals unacceptable in terms of siting, scale, size, materials, digital display, illumination and overall design and appearance. It was considered that the proposed hubs would be harmful and discordant features, and would result in unduly prominent and dominant structures and detracting from the visual amenity of the area (22/02429/FUL Delegated Report).
The delegated report found the information hubs in these applications conflicted with:
- Oxford Local Plan 2036 policies DH1, DH2, DH6, V8 and V9 and Paragraphs 130 and 136 of The NPPF 2021 in their contribution to cluttering the public realm;
- Oxford City Council policies M1, M2, DH1, RE7, the West End Design Guide and Street Scene Manual, NPPF Chapter 12 (specifically paragraphs 110 and 130), the National Design Guide, and the National Model Design Code regarding the detrimental impact on pedestrian mobility;
- Sections 16(2), 66(1) and 72(1) of the 1990 Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Planning Act, paragraphs 189, 197, 199, 200 and 202 of the NPPF and policies S1, DH1, DH2, DH3 and DH5 of the Oxford Local Plan 2036 regarding the detrimental impact on the setting of the Central Conservation Area.
There has been no change in the relevant planning policy framework since the 2022 applications were considered. The above conflicts with both local and national policy are also directly applicable to the current applications 24/01885/FUL and 24/01886/ADV and OPT urge the case officer to reject the applications on these grounds.
Oxford Preservation Trust are aware of existing plans being developed between the City and County Council to improve connectivity across the city, and a unified strategy to address the deficit is the best approach with the highest chance of long term success. Small scale speculative schemes such as the proposed smart communications hubs will not contribute to the long term development of such infrastructure within the city, and only serve to obstruct pedestrian routes, clutter the streetscape and detract from the Oxford’s historic setting.
Outcome:
Applications Refused.